ArticleContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland)2019
Global coverage and consistency of guideline recommendations for cancer cachexia on the Web in 2011 and 2018.
Article in Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing gaps in cancer cachexia care among healthcare professionals at Uganda Cancer Institute.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Patient and family support in the era of fake e-medicine: food for thought from an international consensus panel.ESMO open · 2020Article
- Barriers in Nursing Practice in Cancer Cachexia: A Scoping Review.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCancer cachexia is a common associate of cancer and has a negative impact on both patients' quality of life and overall survival. Nonetheless its management remains suboptimal in clinical practice. Provision of medical recommendations in websites is of extreme importance for medical decision making and translating evidence into clinical practice. AIM OF THE STUDY: To scrutinize the magnitude, consistency and changes over time of cancer-cachexia recommendations for physicians on the Web among oncology related societies. Intercontinental, continental, national and socioeconomic variations were further analyzed. MATERIAL AND
methodsWeb identification of oncology related societies and prospective analyses of relative Web guideline recommendations for physicians on cancer-cachexia at different time-points.
resultsIn June 2011, we scrutinized 144,000 Web pages. We identified 275 societies, of which 270 were eligible for analyses: 67 were international (African, American, Asian, European, Oceania and Intercontinental), 109 belonged to the top 10 countries with the highest development index and 94 pertained to 10 countries with a long lasting tradition in medical oncology.
conclusionsThe magnitude of cancer cachexia recommendations for physicians on the Web at a global level was scant both for coverage and consistency, and at any time-point considered: 3.7% (10/270) in 2011 and 8.1% (22/270) in 2018. The proportion of societies giving evidence-based and updated recommendations for cancer cachexia for physicians was only 1.1% (3/270) in 2011 and 2.96% (8/270) in 2018. Continent, national highest developmental index, oncology tradition and economic-geographic areas were not found to influence Web guideline provision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.